The Case for the Trailblazers
(cc photo by Keith Allison)
Eli Lake and I agree that the Portland Trailblazers are the only team that could beat the Lakers in the Western Conference in the coming NBA season. The main reason for this, as I see it, is that basically it’s extremely unlikely that anyone can beat the Lakers—they’re really good. For another team to be better, something weird would have to happen. And Portland is basically the best chance for that to happen.
Brandon Roy is 25 years old; LaMarcus Aldridge, Rudy Fernandez, and Travis Outlaw are 24, Greg Oden is 21, Nicolas Batum is 20. That’s six rotation players who are young enough that it’s plausible to imagine them taking a substantial step forward. And if four or five of them do take simultaneous substantial steps forward, then the team is going to be much better. And it’ll be a much better version of a team that was already very good. Notwithstanding their poor playoff performance, last year’s Blazers has the second best point differential in the West. Now is it likely that four or five of those six guys will all take simultaneous substantial steps forward while veteran guys like Joe Pryzbilla and Andre Miller stay level? No, it’s not especially likely. That’d be a stroke of good luck.
But it does seem to me to be within the realm of possibility. And it seems a lot more plausible to me than the idea that Tim Duncan and Manu Ginobili are going to start playing better in their thirties.
44 Responses to “The Case for the Trailblazers”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
September 9th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Well-reasoned, spot-on analysis.
I think what you’re missing though, is the question is not “which team is most likely to get to play the Lakers in the playoffs?” It’s which team will BEAT the Lakers.
So when you say, “Notwithstanding [Portland's] poor playoff performance…” you’re kinda going off the rails. Maybe Tim Duncan does have a better chance to knock them off in the playoffs, given his “experience.”
September 9th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Can’t the Nuggets challenge with a full year and full training camp under their belts with Birdman and Chauncy? All the other major pieces are back from last year. Kleiza for Afalo is basically a lateral move. They were good enough to almost beat the Laters last year…
September 9th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Tim Duncan and Manu don’t need to start playing better, they need to be healthy.
September 9th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
seriously, overlook the Nuggets at your own peril — Portland won’t even win the division this year (again)
September 9th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
agree with Ify-if you get a healthy Duncan and Ginobili, along with a still-in-their-primes Parker and Jefferson, with reasonable contributions from Antonio McDyess, George Hill and Dejuan Blair, then add in perhaps a mid-season trade for another veteran involving Finley and Bonner’s expiring contracts, then I think you have a team that could beat the Lakers.
Now, all that’s somewhat unlikely. But I think it’s more likely than all the young Blazers taking a big step forward. I kinda think Roy has reached his potential, and I’m not sure that Oden really has the coordination to ever be a more effective NBA big man than he currently is.
September 9th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Dear America,
We regret to inform you that your dreams of NBA glory must be put on hold until further notice. 2009-2010 is simply going to be another Laker Year.
We appreciate your patience.
Sincerely,
Southern California
September 9th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Don’t underestimate the addition of Andre Miller. He’s probably one of the most underrated NBA point guards of the past decades. Yeah, his defense is spotty, but he is a steady and creative playmaker on offense, who shoots a high percentage and doesn’t rely on speed to create opportunities. He may average 10 assists a game next year on a team like Portland, just watch.
September 9th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Matt,
As a regular reader of your blog who has really never followed basketball much, I’d love to read a longer piece by you about basketball in general and why you’re interested in it. It’s always come across to me as a rather, lets say “contrived,” sport. My big problem is how subjective the rules seem to be: what is a foul? What exactly is allowed in defense and what is not? Anyway, I like your basketball posts on a theoretical level, but I’m still struggling with developing a cerebral enjoyment of the game.
September 9th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
I love the occasional mix of hoops and politics in your blog, Matt.
Btw – in this case – “Trail Blazers” is two words…
September 9th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
# RTG Says:
September 9th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Matt,
As a regular reader of your blog who has really never followed basketball much, I’d love to read a longer piece by you about basketball in general and why you’re interested in it. It’s always come across to me as a rather, lets say “contrived,” sport. My big problem is how subjective the rules seem to be: what is a foul? What exactly is allowed in defense and what is not? Anyway, I like your basketball posts on a theoretical level, but I’m still struggling with developing a cerebral enjoyment of the game.
Seriously. If only NBA games could be called as objectively and consistently as holding and pass interference in the NFL or balls and strikes in baseball.
September 9th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
“And it seems a lot more plausible to me than the idea that Tim Duncan and Manu Ginobili are going to start playing better in their thirties.”
Richard Jefferson and Roger Mason Jr are the appropriate items in this comparison…
——
The TrailBlazers are a fun young team, but I don’t think they’re a particularly serious contender unless Oden suddenly becomes waaaaaaay more than anyone thinks at this point.
September 9th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
I think the chances the Spurs are somewhat healthier than last year are about as good as the chances the Blazers all take steps forward. You left out Martell Webster, who may at some point prove effective.
September 9th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Please note that it is Football Season. Please refrain from any further Basketball discussion until October 15th.
Thank you.
September 9th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
You might be more convincing if you don’t cite a pathetic hack like Eli Lake.
September 9th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
This post is insane. If Tim and Manu are healthy, the Spurs are easily capable of defeating the Lakers. I see no reason why Nicholas Beaudrot claims this is unlikely.
Moreover, Matthew’s claim that the Lakers are really good depends on Ron Artest no f*%^ing up the team. That seems to me even more unlikely than Tim and Manu being healthy.
September 9th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
You’re going to need athletic length to beat the Lakers, and (IIRC) the Blazers have it and no one else really does.
September 9th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
You’re going to need athletic length to beat the Lakers
Why?
September 9th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Moreover, Matthew’s claim that the Lakers are really good depends on Ron Artest no f*%^ing up the team.
Yeah, that really is the issue. The sad truth is that he really is crazy. I don’t really think that whether or not he destroys the Lakers’ season is really up to him.
OTOH, he’s big enough to bang with LeBron, which is extremely rare. I always thought he was going to be super valuable to any team that assumed it would have to contend with LeBron in the deep playoffs.
September 9th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Why?
Because they’re big across the back: you could play an all 7′ front court, given Lamar’s ball handling skills. And all those guys can run. Even Bynum.
September 9th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
For another team to be better, something weird would have to happen. And Portland is basically the best chance for that to happen.
If the Lakers don’t win the West, it will most likely be because they sustained some key injuries (to Kobe or Pau and/or others), not because some other team (such as Portland) spontaneously improved across the board. Think of how dramatically injuries on the Celtics and Rockets shaped last season’s results. Like it or not, injuries are the single biggest factor that determines an NBA season.
September 9th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
“Yeah, that really is the issue. The sad truth is that he really is crazy.”
He obviously makes you better.
You lucked into a title last year. You could well deserve to win one this coming year.
This year is going to tell us much more about Kobe’s mental makeup than Ron-Ron’s mental makeup.
September 9th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
lfv,
Well played.
September 9th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Upon reviewing the thread, jamie said it before I did, and said it better than I did as well.
September 9th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Because they’re big across the back: you could play an all 7′ front court, given Lamar’s ball handling skills. And all those guys can run. Even Bynum.
What you are really talking about is the matchup for Lamar, since McDyess and Duncan can matchup with Pau and Bynum. Granted, Lamar is a difficult matchup if he plays the 3, but in that case, I’m not sure Lamar can guard Jefferson on the other end. The thing is that teams didn’t have to work to guard the Spurs 3 in earlier years, because Bowen et al didn’t present huge problems. I happen to think that Richard Jefferson is VERY overrated as an overall player (his defense is no longer good and he doesn’t rebound or pass that well), but he is still a good offensive player who could score on Lamar if the Lakers play Lamar at the 3.
September 9th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
Best thing you ever wrote, Matt! I can’t wait for the season to start and see what a difference the addition of Andre Miller can make for the Blazers.
And Rusty says - seriously, overlook the Nuggets at your own peril — Portland won’t even win the division this year (again)
You do know that the Blazers and the Nuggets split the Northwest Division title last year, right?
September 9th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
“What you are really talking about is the matchup for Lamar”
Lamar has always been useless at the elite level because he can’t shoot the ball.
He shot the ball quite well this past summer, which is why the Lakers won a title in a weak year. But I wouldn’t count on lightning striking twice.
The Artest addition is important enough to make the Lakers a decent bet next year, but matching up with Lamar is the least of anyone’s worries.
“I happen to think that Richard Jefferson is VERY overrated as an overall player”
He’s overrated as a “featured” player. But he’s quite nice as a glue guy who’s your fourth or fifth option.
September 9th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
What you are really talking about is the matchup for Lamar, since McDyess and Duncan can matchup with Pau and Bynum.
Fair point. I forgot that the Spurs had picked up McDyess. It’s going to be a really fun year.
September 9th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
I love your post!
From a Portland native.
September 9th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
RTG: Speaking for myself not Matt …
Every possession in a basketball game is, in the eyes of a knowledgeable fan, a little tactical drama. At it’s best — Nash driving on Duncan a couple years ago — each fraction of a second is rich with detail and consequence. If the fan has played the game, his mirror neurons make him feel like he’s on the court (in the same way good video games do). Watching a good playoff game is like watching a great action movie.
Many NBA games are not well-played, and it takes years of watching (and preferably playing) to appreciate what’s going on. Baseball and to a lesser extent football are much easier for fans to “self-study” on video. Note that you almost certainly have better things to do with your time than learn to watch basketball — but maybe this helps explain why others watch.
September 9th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
SomeCallMeTim is right — the Lakers big edge over the
rest of the West is the Gasol/Odom frontcourt.
Neither the Nuggets nor the Spurs front-line have the length
and athleticism to deal with both Odom and Gasol.
If (Big if) Oden can stay healthy and begin to reach his
potential, he and Aldridge make the Blazers the only
team who can match-up with the Lakers.
September 9th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Dear other people in the thread,
What’s it feel like to be debating whether a team will be in contention?
*sigh*
Knicks fan
September 9th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
For another team to be better, something weird would have to happen. And Portland is basically the best chance for that to happen.
Well, Kobe Bryant or Pau Gasol could get hurt. That would leave the door open for San Antonio, Portland, or any number of fringier contenders (Denver, New Orleans, Utah…). That’s at least as likely as the scenario you sketch out.
But agree… it’s likely the top of the Eastern conference will be where all the drama is this season.
September 9th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
Who would beat the Lakers if they had injuries. This is the most probable way for them to loose.
September 10th, 2009 at 12:19 am
as of know, everything you write is golden to me, sir. they are an easy team to like, even if we, their fans, are insufferable.
September 10th, 2009 at 12:21 am
I got too excited and did not proof – my note. Sentiment stands
September 10th, 2009 at 12:37 am
Tell self: respect for Matt as political head need not extend to basketball, where he clearly is either new to the party or has stepped outside for a ciggy quite often.
The only time in the last 20-odd years that the winning team in either a conference or league finals series didn’t have the best player in the series on its side was the weird aberration of the 04 pistons, when kobe and shaq were doing everything they could to tank each other’s careers.
Duncan can head-to-head Kobe, even now, in his ability to control a series. Roy can’t. And other than the pistons, can’t will never cut it.
September 10th, 2009 at 2:52 am
The Blazers had a pretty strange off-season–they signed Milsap to an offer sheet for no reason and then picked up an old point guard. I guess that makes them better, but they’ve moved into the second or third phase of patient, disciplined rebuilding where the core is there, aging veterans are joining up, the team is making the playoffs regularly, but some of the young guys aren’t panning out, you’ve got your core and contract difficulties are starting to pop up. Unfortunately there aren’t any more pleasant surprises on the horizon–I don’t have much hope for Odom, Batum, Fernandez, or Outlaw.
This team is basically Roy and Aldridge, now with Miller. That’s pretty good, but it’s not better than the Lakers or a healthy Spurs. And that’s very sad.
September 10th, 2009 at 5:18 am
If the Spurs beat a healthy Lakers squad in the playoffs this season, I’ll eat my shorts. I appreciate MY’s spirit here, but I think the Spurs are a better pick because, as others have noted, a Laker’s injury is the best hope for anyone. Noting that, I’d say Denver or the Spurs have the best chance to win the conference besides the Lakers. The Blazers need a decent playoff run to get some experience before they can be expected to win a conference.
September 10th, 2009 at 6:37 am
The logic is all wrong. The NBA is actually not a young man’s league. Veteran teams win championships, consistently. The key to winning a championship is having great veterans who stay healthy. Look at the championship teams over the last 20 years: Pistons, Bulls, Rockets, Spurs, Lakers. Even the randoms like the Celtics and Heat. All veteran-led teams with significant playoff experience (i.e. several years of deep runs). The only exception is importing veteran free agents like Boston and Miami did. The only logical competitors to the Lakers are the Spurs in the West and the Celtics and Cavs in the East.
September 10th, 2009 at 7:15 am
“The logic is all wrong. The NBA is actually not a young man’s league. Veteran teams win championships, consistently.”
Yup.
“The only logical competitors to the Lakers are the Spurs in the West and the Celtics and Cavs in the East.”
Everyone, (not just you), are writing off the Magic too easily. A healthy Jameer and a still quite able Vince Carter along with the additions of Bass and Barnes make them genuinely dangerous.
There are five serious contenders heading into training camp, not four.
September 10th, 2009 at 7:24 am
“they signed Milsap to an offer sheet for no reason”
It was a smart move, though it didn’t pan out. The concept was to panic the Jazz into shedding Boozer, which would create ripples in a multi-team trade to free an elite player for the Blazers. It didn’t work, but trying it didn’t cost them anything.
“and then picked up an old point guard”
Similar move to the Nuggets picking up Billups last year. Miller will enable the Blazers to win a couple of more games, but it won’t make them contenders.
“Unfortunately there aren’t any more pleasant surprises on the horizon–I don’t have much hope for Odom, Batum, Fernandez, or Outlaw.”
Rudy and Travis are role players, but they’re quite nice role players. I’d want either one of them.
The Blazers’ problem is that neither LA nor Roy are enough to carry a contender. They’re in the same situation Chicago was in a few years back – a deep roster of nice players, but no superstar. They need to find a way to trade young valuable pieces for an elite guy, which is always easier said than done. But that’s what the Milsap offer sheet was all about…
September 10th, 2009 at 7:25 am
Have you seen the way Portland’s final draft pick – Patrick Mills – played against the Redeem Team at the Beijing Olympics? If you haven’t, I think it could be described as “pleasantly surprising”, at the least.
September 10th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
[...] Matthew Yglesias – who is better known for his political insights than for his sports coverage –… Although I am not sure that’s true, I do concur – as I noted a month ago — with the sentiment that the Blazers can challenge the Lakers. [...]
September 11th, 2009 at 11:37 am
The only time in the last 20-odd years that the winning team in either a conference or league finals series didn’t have the best player in the series on its side was the weird aberration of the 04 pistons, when kobe and shaq were doing everything they could to tank each other’s careers.
So do you agree that Garnett is better than Kobe? Even in 2008? Because, while that’s a proposition I think I’d agree with, is is not the consensus view.